Study: Spanking Kids Leads to More Aggressive Behavior

[grasping the after wind]

That wasn't an answer. The fact you didn't give an answer suggests to me that you can't figure it out, either.

Please, tell me how one spanks a child with love.

The same way you do anything else with love. The same way you send a child to time out with love. The same way you ground a child with love. The same way you tell an addicted child that they cannot have your financial support with love. Do you know how to do any of these things with love? I have experienced being spanked with love and am better for it. I have also experienced being spanked with anger and know the difference.

 

[interpreter]

I was spanked a lot as kid, yet was (and still am) the most nonviolent person you will ever meet. I often backed down from fights, even from kids smaller than me. the only fights I've ever been in were fights that I absolutely could not avoid.

Amen. You sound exactly like me. I will go by the Bible (spare the rod and spoil the child).

 

[nolongerhome]

The same way you do anything else with love. The same way you send a child to time out with love. The same way you ground a child with love. The same way you tell an addicted child that they cannot have your financial support with love. Do you know how to do any of these things with love? I have experienced being spanked with love and am better for it. I have also experienced being spanked with anger and know the difference.

I know that you can punish a child because of your love for them, because they need to understand the consequences of their actions, because they need to be able to make their own choices and be independent, because not all behaviours can or should be humoured...

What I am struggling with is how you can punish that child with love by using physical violence agaiinst the child.

There is a difference between withholding funds, by putting a child in time-out or grounding them and using physical force against them. I don't think that the fact you can punish a child with love through non-violent means necessarily means you can punish a child wth love through violent-means.

 

[JustOneWay]

it's all in how spanking is done. if spanking is done out of anger, for example, rather than with love and control, or if it's used frequently rather than as a last resort, than spanking is being done improperly.

this study doesn't reveal much. any form of punishment can lead to agressive behavior if done wrong.

S & M ?

 

[JustOneWay]

some children need to demonstrate a little more aggression

I was gonna go in another direction and claim that after I spank my son, I feel like kicking the dog....I guess spanking does in fact lead to more aggressive behavior.

 

[Corey]

Do you have any factual evidence to back up your assertions that most behavior is due to situational constraints and spanking teaches that aggression is an appropriate tool? I did not make a dispositional evaluation I merely suggested the possibility of of genetic variance.

I was going to post a dissertation, but then thought better about it (I'm feeling lazy )

Here are three classic and seminal examples I use to emphasize the power of situations when I do lectures:

Asch Conformity Experiments:

Summary: In the below studies, nearly all participants conformed to the group opinion at least once on a clearly incorrect answer.

References:

• Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.) Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
• Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31-35.
• Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70 (Whole no. 416).

Milgram Experiments:

Summary: The Milgram experiments were conducted and demonstrated that people are willing to follow instructions from an authority in spite of their own attitudes and misgivings (even when experience extreme duress about the instructions). Prior to the experiments, no one (laymen or psychologists) expected the level of obedience that Milgram demonstrated. This occurred across all demographic groups from blue collar workers to college graduates.

References:

• Milgram, Stanley (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67: 371–378.
• Milgram, Stanley. (1974), Obedience to Authority; An Experimental View.

Stanford Prison Experiment:

Summary: Phil Zimbardo (oddly enough Milgram's High School classmate) randomly assigned 16 college students to one of two groups: guards or prisoners. I highly recommend just going to the website for the full description as it is extremely interesting.

The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment

Zimbardo himself was sucked into the situation and admitted as much. However, there are some legitimate criticisms related to the generalizability (including how Zimbardo gave instructions to the guards).

Questions?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I know that you can punish a child because of your love for them, because they need to understand the consequences of their actions, because they need to be able to make their own choices and be independent, because not all behaviours can or should be humoured...

What I am struggling with is how you can punish that child with love by using physical violence agaiinst the child.

There is a difference between withholding funds, by putting a child in time-out or grounding them and using physical force against them. I don't think that the fact you can punish a child with love through non-violent means necessarily means you can punish a child wth love through violent-means.

I reject your characterization of spanking as "violence against" the child. Especially I object to the word against. Of course anything you would do against a child would not be done with love. How do you want to define violence? Would restraining a child be considered violence? It certainly is using physical force. So if a child was about to stick their hand in a fire wouldn't you use physical force to pull them away from that fire? Would you be doing that out of love? Or would this also be violence against the child? If physical force can be used with love to restrain a child , why do you find it so inconceivable that mild physical force could be used to punish a child while still loving the child.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I was going to post a dissertation, but then thought better about it (I'm feeling lazy )

Here are three classic and seminal examples I use to emphasize the power of situations when I do lectures:

Asch Conformity Experiments:

Summary: In the below studies, nearly all participants conformed to the group opinion at least once on a clearly incorrect answer.

References:

• Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.) Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
• Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31-35.
• Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70 (Whole no. 416).

Milgram Experiments:

Summary: The Milgram experiments were conducted and demonstrated that people are willing to follow instructions from an authority in spite of their own attitudes and misgivings (even when experience extreme duress about the instructions). Prior to the experiments, no one (laymen or psychologists) expected the level of obedience that Milgram demonstrated. This occurred across all demographic groups from blue collar workers to college graduates.

References:

• Milgram, Stanley (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67: 371–378.
• Milgram, Stanley. (1974), Obedience to Authority; An Experimental View.

Stanford Prison Experiment:

Summary: Phil Zimbardo (oddly enough Milgram's High School classmate) randomly assigned 16 college students to one of two groups: guards or prisoners. I highly recommend just going to the website for the full description as it is extremely interesting.

The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment

Zimbardo himself was sucked into the situation and admitted as much. However, there are some legitimate criticisms related to the generalizability (including how Zimbardo gave instructions to the guards).

Questions?

These types of studies are indeed myriad as you previously posted , however, they do not prove that most behavior is due to situational restraints only that certain types of behaviors are greatly influenced by situational constraints. I don't believe that they address the "spanking teaches aggression is an appropriate tool" assertion.

 

[nolongerhome]

I reject your characterization of spanking as "violence against" the child. Especially I object to the word against. Of course anything you would do against a child would not be done with love. How do you want to define violence? Would restraining a child be considered violence? It certainly is using physical force. So if a child was about to stick their hand in a fire wouldn't you use physical force to pull them away from that fire? Would you be doing that out of love? Or would this also be violence against the child? If physical force can be used with love to restrain a child , why do you find it so inconceivable that mild physical force could be used to punish a child while still loving the child.

I consider violence to be the unwarranted use of physical force against another person.

It is certainly right to use physical force to restrain a child who would otherwise stick their hand in a fire/run on to a busy road/engage in any other dangerous activity. I don't consider that to be violence - it isn't unwarranted, your use of force is protecting them from danger.

You don't think there is a difference between using force to stop a child from hurting themselves and using force as a punishment for something a child has already done?

Again, I find your analogies poor. Spanking a child is not the same kind of use of force as restraining them from sticking their hand in a fire, just like earlier non-violent means of punishment are not the same as violent means as punishment.

The fact that you keep falling back on these inadequate analogies just demonstrates that you haven't got a particularly good reason why you ought to use physical force as a punishment against a child. I asked you to tell me how to spank a child with love. All you have told me in return is that you can use force legitimately to restrain a child from doing something dangerous and that you can punish a child wih love by non-violent means - you haven't even tried to give a direct answer to the actual question.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I consider violence to be the unwarranted use of physical force against another person.

It is certainly right to use physical force to restrain a child who would otherwise stick their hand in a fire/run on to a busy road/engage in any other dangerous activity. I don't consider that to be violence - it isn't unwarranted, your use of force is protecting them from danger.

You don't think there is a difference between using force to stop a child from hurting themselves and using force as a punishment for something a child has already done?

Again, I find your analogies poor. Spanking a child is not the same kind of use of force as restraining them from sticking their hand in a fire, just like earlier non-violent means of punishment are not the same as violent means as punishment.

The fact that you keep falling back on these inadequate analogies just demonstrates that you haven't got a particularly good reason why you ought to use physical force as a punishment against a child. I asked you to tell me how to spank a child with love. All you have told me in return is that you can use force legitimately to restrain a child from doing something dangerous and that you can punish a child wih love by non-violent means - you haven't even tried to give a direct answer to the actual question.

If you consider violence to be the unwarranted use of physical force against another person , I cannot agree that spanking is violence because I consider spanking to be the warranted use of mild physical discomfort used for the express purpose of modifying anti social behavior in children.

If you read my post you will see that I am not making an analogy between force used to restrain and spanking. I am merely asking why force can be used in some situations with love but is not inconceivable to you in a different circumstance.

 

[Mling]

I haven't read most of this thread (honestly, I'm not going to stick around too long, this is a really uncomfortable topic for me,) but I noticed some people dusting off the "it's not ok to spank in anger, but it's healthy if you do it in a calm, controlled way.

Really?

I mean, losing control and slapping somebody says, "I've lost my temper and I'm doing things I wouldn't normally do." It happens to most people. It's not *good* and if it happens too often it can cause serious damage, but if it's mild and really rare, the household is generally healthy, kids can understand that their parents are human and make mistakes.

But calmly, deliberately hitting somebody says, "I *want* to hurt you. My goal is to hurt you. I'm completely in control of myself and this is what I'm choosing to do. I will hurt you worse if you try to fight back, so you just have to take it because I'm powerful and you're weak."

The only scarier idea, in my mind, is if the person hit me and then giggled.

 

[nolongerhome]

If you consider violence to be the unwarranted use of physical force against another person , I cannot agree that spanking is violence because I consider spanking to be the warranted use of mild physical discomfort used for the express purpose of modifying anti social behavior in children.

Are you able to modify that behaviour with other means? If yes (and the answer is yes), it is unwarranted and unnecessary.

If you read my post you will see that I am not making an analogy between force used to restrain and spanking. I am merely asking why force can be used in some situations with love but is not inconceivable to you in a different circumstance.

Of course you are making an analogy between them - you are making the suggestion that because the force in one instance can be considered justified, it can be considered justified in the other instance.

I don't think that is valid. Why? Because there is a qualitative difference between the force I use to stop someone running onto the street so they don't get hit by a car or from sticking their hand in a fire so they don't get burnt and the force I use as punishment.

On the one hand we have the use of force to prevent someone from suffering physical pain. On the other hand we have the use of force to ensure someone suffers physical pain.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I consider violence to be the unwarranted use of physical force against another person.

It is certainly right to use physical force to restrain a child who would otherwise stick their hand in a fire/run on to a busy road/engage in any other dangerous activity. I don't consider that to be violence - it isn't unwarranted, your use of force is protecting them from danger.

You don't think there is a difference between using force to stop a child from hurting themselves and using force as a punishment for something a child has already done?

Again, I find your analogies poor. Spanking a child is not the same kind of use of force as restraining them from sticking their hand in a fire, just like earlier non-violent means of punishment are not the same as violent means as punishment.

I would characterise being confined to a certain place and made unable to leave by someone as violence.

Yet this is exactly what a "time out" or being grounded is. And to use your own words - it's "using force as a punishment for something a child has already done?"

So why is one form acceptable to you and the other not?

 

[lawtonfogle]

I would characterise being confined to a certain place and made unable to leave by someone as violence.

Yet this is exactly what a "time out" or being grounded is. And to use your own words - it's "using force as a punishment for something a child has already done?"

So why is one form acceptable to you and the other not?

Probably because in society at large, indirect force and indirectly attacking someone is seen as a far better alternative than directly attacking someone. But that is just a guess.

 

[rambot]

I would characterise being confined to a certain place and made unable to leave by someone as violence.

Yet this is exactly what a "time out" or being grounded is. And to use your own words - it's "using force as a punishment for something a child has already done?"

So why is one form acceptable to you and the other not?

Because using time outs effectively is a time tested measure of raising children to and be responsible for their choices. With a whoopin' they were made to feel responsible for the whoopin'.
"I have to do this"
"My hands are tied."

I mean, if you don't have to hit a kid, why would you?
Next question: In what messed up circumstances would you have to?

Perhaps if they were threatenning you with a weapon. Chimps and animals resort to violence. We are animals. . . but a little bit more clever, I'd like to think.



I have never hit a person in my life besides playing "dead arm" with a certain friend in late elementary. I have never been prone to any type of rage. I am rarely angry with people. There were times when I was afraid but I just played smart while I was outside and didn't see them.

 

[nolongerhome]

I would characterise being confined to a certain place and made unable to leave by someone as violence.

Yet this is exactly what a "time out" or being grounded is. And to use your own words - it's "using force as a punishment for something a child has already done?"

So why is one form acceptable to you and the other not?

Again, there is a qualitative difference between the use of force that is getting a child to sit in time out as punishment and the use of force that is hitting them as punishment.

Any form of punishment is a use of force and therefore could be considered "violence". The way I have approached this subject is for the force involved in the treatment of the child to be considered proportional and warranted. The problem is not punishment per se, but the form that punishment, the use of force, takes.

There is clearly a difference in the way we are applying force to a child between:

1. grabbing hold of a child who is about to run into a busy street or put their hand on a hot stove and
2. telling a child to sit in the corner in time out as punishment and
3. hitting a child as punishment.

All can be considered "violence". I don't think that means we are obliged to view all as equally acceptable/unacceptable. Do you?

If you can punish a child with resorting to inflicting physical pain, surely that is a better option? Are there any instances in which the only way to punish a child is by inflicting physical pain?

 

[rambot]

Also, it's simplistic to think that a 6 year old considers being confined in the same way that an adult does.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Because using time outs effectively is a time tested measure of raising children to and be responsible for their choices. With a whoopin' they were made to feel responsible for the whoopin'.
"I have to do this"
"My hands are tied."

I mean, if you don't have to hit a kid, why would you?
Next question: In what messed up circumstances would you have to?

And parents will tell you that some children don't respond to time outs - others do. With a lot of kids (like me) as I grew older it became more effective and I was hardly smacked at all.

Personally, I'm 20 times more worried about children who are given barely any discipline (or who's parents discipline them using timeouts so they can go to their computer-filled room and play for half an hour).

The children from my age group who grew into problematic adults were either (i) beaten badly, (ii) not given much discipline at all or, most often, (iii) a random combination of the first two depending on how their parent felt at the time.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Spanking is kid-specific. It works for some, it doesn't work for others.

I was spanked as a child for grievous offenses. I am not a violent person. I don't even have violent thoughts.

These studies are often bunk and done by people with ulterior motives.

I have respect for those who spank their children and respect for those that don't. What works for your child works for your child but may not work for others. More power to the parents who actually take time to plan out discipline, whether it's spanking or other things, rather than the parents who adopt the "my kids need to do whatever they want in order to learn about consequences".

 

[xMinionX]

I wrote a paper in grad school on different classifications of parenting styles (authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive). The research I found at the time indicated that corporal punishment could be effective, but that it depended heavily on two factors: The childs individual personality, and how the parent followed up the discipline. Authoritarian parents tended to take the "You'll do what I say because it's my house/I'm the boss/I'm in charge" approach without giving the child any other reason for the discipline. That was meaningless to kids, and my research indicated that children raised in authoritarian households applying corporal punishment tended to have more problems with violence, drugs, and discipline once they moved from home. Authoritative parents would actually explain why said discipline was administered. The children of these parents fared much better in many cases. Permissive parenting, by definition, would not use corporal punishment.